A magazine whose content does not inspire a reaction from readers is a magazine on life support. This definitely does not apply to the ACSM Bulletin. As soon as an issue comes out, I receive e-mails that to me are the barometer of the magazine’s health. They help answer questions that all editors worth their salt ask: “Is the magazine’s content upbeat and innovative and, as a result, does it serve its audiences? The papers, comments, and critiques that I have been receiving make me believe that the ACSM Bulletin is on its way to becoming a respected national voice on issues related to collecting, analysing, and managing the use of geospatial data. Naturally, not all of the correspondence has been full of glowing praise. But, while I am no glutton for punishment, I actually enjoy the push-back from readers. And, often, learn something new from them, like when a reader suggested that I might have lost my HI in the February issue. The definition of HI—elevation showing the relationship of an object to the datum”—set me thinking. Perhaps the time has come to re-calibrate the ACSM Bulletin’s HI? The changing realities of our world—shrinking professional organizations and their search for new blood, the changing communications scene, increasing demand for comprehensive information across fields, and generational differences in the type of information required and how this information is accessed. Then there is economics—which business model would best serve the objectives of a national professional magazine with a modest distribution list? The ACSM Bulletin has followed a model with a mix of advertising and subscriptions. Both these publishing revenue streams have been declining—in general, not just for our magazine. One way of countering the adverse effects of declining advertising and declining membership subscriptions is to seek to expand the appeal of the magazine beyond the traditional community supporting it. This, in turn, requires very careful attention to content. It must be relevant so that the community can either learn from it or use it to enhance the work and lives of its members. It must be thought provoking so as to encourage dialogue and, hopefully, further growth. And, finally, it must be inviting so as to pique the interest of people in related science fields. This type of content can only be produced with the direct involvement of the magazine’s readership. We have several examples in this issue of such involvement, which suggests that the ACSM Bulletin’s HI is set to go into even higher “elevations.” Thank you.
Ilse Genovese

—The mail
Re: “The Boundaries of Right and Wrong,” ACSM Bulletin, February 2009, I can offer a more helpful and satisfying view than the seriously limited logic presented in the article. The author’s explanation of right and wrong is limited to the theories of Aristotle and Plato. Vague and unrelated references to math (x = 1/y, the Pythagorean theory, the bell curve of error distribution, etc) are used to support the theories of the ancients. Justification for their flawed logic is sought in illogical references to modern surveying and mapping science. Prof. Hatzopoulos states that the internet has “helped redefine how we think and perform certain activities so as to avoid making mistakes.” That’s really shaky ground. What do you do with the conflicts you find on the Internet? Even more dangerous, the author presents a set of moral absolutes—his own judgment of the “sick mind” vs the “healthy mind.” He concludes that voting on right and wrong is another good way to define it. In such a world ruled by personal opinions, right will be determined by might. History records daily that individual or collective definitions of “right” lead to horrific consequences. And what should the author have done to define right and wrong? He should begin with the universal truths about the universe. The result is a more complete model of our origin, existence, and purpose. The universal truths do not conflict with logic, math, science, and human nature. Rather, they support and explain the physical universe to us. Knowledge becomes our servant as universal truth sets us free. Charles Malik, former President of the UN General Assembly, stated the benefits of such thinking in an address entitled “To Know the True from the False” thus: “I guarantee you two things: first, that you will experience in your own life and being a taste of what is beautiful and strong and certain and free; and second, you will develop such a sharpness of vision as to distinguish the true from the false whenever you come across them. And both your being and your vision will grant you some knowledge of God.” —Bill Ruck, PE, PS, Garver, LLC
...............
I was quite surprised and disappointed that an article promoting Charles Darwin [ACSM Bulletin # 237, February 2009] as “The dawn of the era of science” and promoting evolution was included in a surveying magazine, a national one at that! There was no connection between surveying and the theory of evolution or in Darwin’s life in this article. Darwin does not help make our “moral modernity” as Lincoln did. Rather, he destroys our morals by theorizing that humans are nothing more than chance and thus have no purpose or objectives to guide their lives or aspire to. — Ken Parks, PLS, Garden City, KS
Editor’s note: The connection is through geology and archaeology.